Soumare v Senegal (ECW/CCJ/APP/32/16; ECW/CCJ/JUD/11/19) [2019] ECOWASCJ 39 (27 February 2019)

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the Court has competence to adjudicate on the petitioner's claim of human rights violations, specifically the alleged inability to assess domestic judicial decisions rendered by Senegalese courts.
• Whether the petitioner suffered a denial of justice for not receiving a favorable outcome from prior proceedings before the Senegalese Constitutional Council and Supreme Court.
• Whether the Court should declare the petition formally admissible despite the State of Senegal's objection regarding the lack of a legitimization document for the petitioner's counsel and failure to elect domicile, as required by the Court's rules.
• Whether the petitioner's rights to eligibility, freedom of assembly and opinion were violated under the customs law (Article 8 of the 1969 customs statute) and international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• Whether the State of Senegal's claim for damages (50 million FCFA) for alleged frivolous and vexatious litigation should be granted.
• Whether the petitioner's right to a fair trial was violated by Senegalese courts, specifically in their rejection of his administrative appeal and constitutional challenge to the customs statute.

Holdings

• The court rejected the claim of denial of justice, noting that all jurisdictions involved (Cour Suprême, Conseil Constitutionnel) legally addressed the case.
• The court determined that N'Diaga Soumare's rights to eligibility, assembly, and freedom of opinion, as well as his right to a fair trial, were not violated by the State of Senegal.
• The court dismissed the State of Senegal's request for damages and costs, as the procedure initiated by N'Diaga Soumare was not proven to be vexatious or frustrating.

Remedies

• The court dismissed the State of Senegal's claim for 50 million FCFA in damages, finding the procedure not vexatious and the claim unmotivated.
• The court rejected the exception of irrecevability raised by the State of Senegal, finding that the request was admissible.
• The court ordered that the costs be borne by each party, as no party was found to be at fault.
• The court declared the applicant's request admissible but unfounded, as the alleged violations of rights were not proven.

Legal Principles

• The Court held that N'Diaga Soumare failed to provide evidence substantiating his claims of violated rights (eligibility, assembly, opinion, fair trial) or denial of justice. The burden of proof rested with the applicant to demonstrate these violations.
• The ECOWAS Court emphasized that it is neither an appellate court nor a court of cassation for national judicial decisions. It reiterated its competence to adjudicate human rights violations directly under its mandate, without reviewing the merits of domestic court rulings.

Precedent Name

Cited Statute

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
• Protocol and Additional Protocol relating to the ECOWAS Court of Justice
• Regulation of the ECOWAS Court of Justice
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Law 69-64 of 30 October 1969 porting Statut des Douanes
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
• Revised Treaty establishing the Economic Community of West African States (CEDEAO)
• Constitution of the Republic of Sénégal

Judge Name

• JANUARIA TAVARES SILVA MOREIRA COSTA
• GBERI-BE OUATTARA
• KEIKURA BANGURA

Passage Text

• Déclare la requête recevable mais mal fondée ;
• En résulte que l'Etat du Sénégal, en réglementant l'accès à la profession d'agent des douanes, n'a nullement violé la déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme et le pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques de sorte que la Cour ne peut suivre NDIAGA SOUMARE dont la demande est mal fondée ;
• La prétention d'avoir été victime d'un déni de justice n'est pas fondée ;